OT: [META] Re: OT: NMRK
|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, November 3, 2004, 19:02|
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 01:14:41PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> I don't mind this being discussed on-list, since we are talking about a
> religious application of language rather than language itself.
So you'd mind if we talked about language itself? Dang, that's what I
thought this list was for! ;-)
It is in any case too late for Buddhist intervention, as Kerry has
conceded, and we get Bush for four more years (or until we're all blown
up, whichever comes first :)).
> > >I know I've defended the No Cross No Crown rule in the past,
> Strictly speaking, we have no such rule.
That's good, 'cause the message that started this thread was a
double-threat - cross AND crown, in one swell foop!
> Religion and politics, like text editors and auxlangs,
Redundant. Text editors and auxlangs *are* religions. :)
> may not be *advocated* for here, but they may certainly be *discussed*,
> with appropriate tact and due regard for people's individual feelings.
Recent threads, however, indicate that this is not necessarily possible
on here, which might make total avoidance of the topics a safer choice.
> > >Something like [nam.mj7:h7:4eN.ge:kj7:] can be used; [o]'s instead of
> > >'s. The "ge" is normally short, but is lengthened for purposes of
> > >repeated chanting. Likewise, the "nam" has been shortened from "namu".
> It's useful to have this phonetic information.
Indeed. Though now I have to go look up which vowel  is. :)